Public Bill Committee

[David Taylor in the Chair]

Clause 41

Competition scrutiny of functions and agreements relating to buses

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 258, in clause 41, page 36, line 20, after area, insert
including actions to ease congestion on a highway network..
Good afternoon to you, Mr. Taylor. I am happy to move the amendment. Before the break, we heard about the enthusiasm for voluntary partnerships, which I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Wimbledon I share. They are indeed a useful way forward. If they can be made to work, they are preferable to quality contractsalthough they too have a role. The amendment would make them as attractive as possible by making it explicitly clear that a voluntary partnership arrangement can cover
actions to ease congestion on a highway network.
The amendment would write that definition of a voluntary partnership agreement into clause 41(2). The Minister might say that such matters can certainly be taken into account by a voluntary partnership agreement. If she says that, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment in due course. However, it is important to put on the record that a voluntary partnership agreement should cover such matters, not least because there is reluctance among some local highway or transport authorities to recognise that they too have a role to play in delivering better bus services. It is not simply a question of encouraging bus companies to put on more or better buses. If there is a problem with the highway network, it can lead to congestion and delays, which in turn is a significant disincentive for people who wish to travel by bus.
An example in my constituency is Brighton and Hove Bus and Coach Company, which has been successful with a voluntary agreement with the local councils. It has put on extra buses through Lewes to Ringmer and almost as far Tunbridge Wells, and to Brighton in the other direction. That has been successful, but there is a major problem with the junction at Earwig Corner, which is out of Lewes on the way to Ringmer. There has been complete inaction from the local county council in dealing with the junction, and the consequence has been a knock-on effect on punctuality all along the network from Brighton to Tunbridge Wells. Bus passengers all along that route are being severely disadvantaged. A voluntary partnership in that area, and more generally, ought to pick up such problems. That should be a key part of dealing with any agreement between bus companies and local councils. I would welcome the Minister telling me whether that is the case. In parenthesis, if she can put any pressure on East Sussex county council to sort out that junction, it would be even more welcome.

Rosie Winterton: Welcome back to the chair, Mr. Taylor.
As the hon. Member for Lewes has noted, the definition of a voluntary partnership agreement requires the local authority to undertake to provide facilities that might include bus lanes, new bus shelters and so on, or do anything else for the purpose of bringing benefits to bus passengers. We have deliberately cast that definition quite widely because of comments that we received during the consultation process from the Passenger Transport Executive Group and others.
Obviously, it seems likely that if a local authority agrees to take action to help address traffic congestion, it should deliver benefits to bus passengers in the form of reduced and more predictable journey times. As long as passengers are expected to benefit in that way, the existing definition of a voluntary partnership agreement in the Bill already delivers the effect that the hon. Gentlemans amendment would have. I understand the point that he is making, but I think the matter is covered in the Bill. I hope that provides the reassurance that he is seeking and enables him to withdraw his amendment.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that those sorts of measure are included in the wider definition. I thought that they probably were, but it was useful to check. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: Good afternoon, Mr. Taylor. I want to register some other issues about competition and to get some comments from the Minister.
As the Minister said earlier, the Government are working closely on this part of the Bill with the Campaign for Better Transport and she has rightly acknowledged the input of that organisation. I would like to raise an issue that has not been tackled and which concerns the organisationthat the changes made by the clause and by schedule 2 affect the way in which agreements between operators and local authorities are deemed to be in the public interest or not. In effect, they allow competition law to be relaxed so that bus companies can discuss how best to work in partnership.
What has not yet been discussed is how that competition law might relate to the integration of other modes of transport. Although bus companies compete with one another, they also compete with other modes of transport, most commonly the car and the tram.
What can the Minister tell us about how the market might be defined? For example, a merger between two bus companies to create a dominant operator in a given area could be seen as anti-competitive if looking at the bus market alone and it might fall foul of competition law while actually enhancing bus patronage. If the product of the merger were to improve the attractiveness of buses overall, there might be a switch from car to bus, something I am sure the Minister would seek to encourage. In what circumstances might she be prepared to look again at how we might define the market? What consultation has the Office of Fair Trading had with the Department about the bigger picture? Buses do not just compete with themselves, they compete with other modes of transport as well.

Norman Baker: That is an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Wimbledon. There is also the question of what happens when the bus competes with the train and whether that should be taken into account, particularly if the bus company and the train company are run by the same parent, which does happen. Companies such as First run buses and trains, sometimes in competition with each other. How do we deal with that situation?

Rosie Winterton: The point is that what we are trying to achieve here is limited to the competition between bus services. We are talking about voluntary partnership agreements between local authorities and bus operators. I take the point that there might be times when it is important to take into account that a railway service might be running along the same route but we are talking about the specific situation where bus operators are allowed to run along particular routes as and when they want, if it is a commercial service. In other areas a subsidy can be given by the local authority.
We are trying to get over the fact that it has been difficult for one or more bus operators to sit down with the local authority and work out, for example, what might be appropriate in terms of the frequency of patterns of servicethat is definitely between the bus operators themselves. We have discussed at other points in the Bill whether it would be a good idea, when considering overall integrated transport plans, to look at how bus services fitted in with rail services, for example. However, in this case, we are talking specifically about the issues of bus operators, because they would be talking about running along particular routesthe local authority would like to sit down with them and organise such things as the patterns of service. I take on board the comments made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, but that would fit into another part of how the local authority or integrated transport authority would want to look at other services in its overall transport plan.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 43

Determination of applications for registration where restrictions in force

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 225, in clause 43, page 38, line 14, leave out subsection (5).

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 226, in clause 43, page 38, line 18, leave out that question and insert
whether to accept the application.
No. 227, in clause 43, page 38, line 19, leave out those representations and insert
any relevant representations made by a relevant authority or a relevant operator.
No. 228, in clause 43, page 38, line 25, leave out subsection (7).
No. 229, in clause 43, page 38, line 28, leave out
If subsection (7) above does not apply,.
No. 230, in clause 43, page 38, line 29, at end insert
(za) accept the application;.

Stephen Hammond: I am speaking to a series of amendments dealing with one particular theme, which we discussed when we looked at the quality partnerships part of the Bill. Local authorities have some powers to impose restrictions on bus services that operate in an area where a quality partnership is also in operation. Clause 43 looks at the issue from the other sidethat of the prospective traffic commissioner. My amendments are motivated by a concern that some unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions are being placed on traffic commissioners carrying out their functions. Under the provisions of the clause, when the traffic commissioner receives an application for a registration in an area where a quality partnership is in operation, he must first give notice to the authority and the operator or operators party to the new quality contracts scheme. The authority or the operator may make representations to the traffic commissioner, which he must consider in making his decision.
I am trying to see why that provision is necessary. When traffic commissioners decide whether to accept the registration applications made by the operators, they already take into account all local circumstances that might be affected by such a registration. The traffic commissioner will know about the quality partnership in the area, and will bear in mind the impact that he believes additional registrations would have. I am not clear why he needs to be placed under the obligation to take into account additional representations. It seems to me that an element of the clause is telling the traffic commissioner how to do his job, which is neither necessary nor appropriate.

Rosie Winterton: The clause will give traffic commissioners powers to determine whether applications to register new services, or to modify or withdraw existing ones, would be detrimental to a quality partnership scheme. That is linked to measures in clause 13, which would allow a local transport authority to include registration restrictions in a scheme. When making such decisions, the traffic commissioner must apply the registration criteria contained in the scheme. The clause sets out the procedure to be followed when an application to which such restrictions apply is received. If the traffic commissioner decides that an application would be detrimental to the quality partnership scheme, he may turn it down, he may require the applicant to amend it or he may require them to undertake that they would provide services to the standards specified in the scheme. The clause also provides a right of appeal to the Transport Tribunal against decisions of the traffic commissioner.
We included the provisions in response to concerns that a successful quality partnership scheme could be undermined by disruptive competitionby competitors not prepared to meet the standards specified in the scheme. The purpose is to protect operators and authorities that might have made significant investment in facilities or standards of service. The provisions also provide protection for the passengers who benefit from the improvements in service that a scheme should bring.
The amendment would prevent the traffic commissioner from making an assessment as to whether a registration application would be detrimental to services provided under a quality partnership scheme. He would instead be limited to basing his decision on the registration criteria and the representations and evidence put before him. He would obviously have to consider representations from operators and authorities as part of the decision-making process. Indeed, if no such representations are made, the legislation stipulates that he must accept the application.
We believe that the changes are necessary. It is important that the traffic commissioner should be able to make such assessments, as that will ensure that quality partnership schemes cannot be undermined in the ways that I outlined earlier. We included the provision for registration restrictions to help prevent destabilising competitionit is often seen in so-called bus warswhich can affect operators that have invested in quality partnership schemes and the passengers who need the services. We believe that limiting the assessment strictly to the relevant representations with authorities and operators would diminish the commissioners ability to make an informed decision. That is why I urge the hon. Member for Wimbledon to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond: I listened carefully to the Minister, and I am reassured by her words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44

Applications for registration where quality contracts scheme in force

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 239, in clause 44, page 40, line 20, leave out subsection (3).

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments No. 240, in clause 44, page 40, line 23, at end insert
and the appropriate approval authority.
No. 241, in clause 44, page 40, line 24, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert
(5) The traffic commissioner shall decide whether to accept or reject the application..

Stephen Hammond: Under the Transport Act 2000, operators are prohibited from registering additional services in an area where there is a quality contract scheme in operation, subject to certain qualifications. Clause 44 re-examines the issue and makes some modifications to the rules that govern the registration of services in areas where a quality contract scheme is operational.
My belief that the clause requires some change stems from a number of concerns. That will be no surprise to the Committee. First, is it right to restrict free competition, let alone in an area with a quality contract? Should other operators not be able to run services alongside the quality contract if they see a demand? Last week, the Minister put it on record that if a service was not detrimental to the quality contract she would regard it as acceptable. The services provided under a quality contract may or may not suffice in providing the services that locals require. It is possible that the network of services could be improved.
SecondlyI return to my fear that the traffic commissioners will end up being micro-managedthe provisions of the Bill and of previous legislation are designed to ensure that traffic commissioners are given certain functions and that they have the appropriate proficiency, resources and independence to carry out those functions. Beyond that, it should not be necessary to interfere in their work. One of the most important functions of traffic commissioners is the registration of buses. They receive the registration application and, having weighed all the pros and cons, they have to decide whether to accept or reject it. Under the clause, they will be told who to consult and how to reach that decision, but that calls into question the very independence of the traffic commissioner.
The clause removes from the traffic commissioner the function of accepting registrations It does so by placing an obligation on the traffic commissioner to invite representations from the relevant local authority. If he receives a clearance certificate, he has no choice but to accept the application. If he does not receive a clearance certificate he has no choice but to reject the application. All he is at that point is a thoroughly pointless middleman who does nothing but pass the application on to the local authority to be approved, or not. I am not sure that that was what the Government intended the traffic commissioner to do at that point. One wonders why he becomes just a pointless middleman.
My amendment would work in two ways. First, it would put an obligation on the traffic commissioner to consult not only the local authority running the quality contract scheme but the approvals board that approved it. That is important, as the board will consist of independent, qualified individuals with an intimate knowledge of the arrangements of the quality contract scheme and its impact on the registration of additional services. Secondly, the amendment would remove from the clause the subsections that require the traffic commissioner to comply with the issuance or non-issuance of a clearance certificate. A traffic commissioner should not need to be told by anyone how to do his job. His job is to decide on the registration of bus services, but the clause takes that away.

Rosie Winterton: As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendments would place decisions as to whether additional services could be operated in an area covered by a quality contracts scheme with the traffic commissioner, rather than the local authority that made the scheme. Perhaps I could briefly explain the purpose behind the clause. It provides an exception to the general rule that in an area where a quality contracts scheme is in place, all services must be provided under quality contracts. That means that no other services can be registered with the traffic commissioner to operate in the area. There is already a power for the authority to exclude certain services or types of service from the scheme, and they may be registered with the traffic commissioner in the usual way. For example, long-distance services with only one or two stops in the scheme area might be excluded, or services for a niche market such as tour buses or works buses.
A need or demand may arise, however, during the lifetime of a scheme for services that were not anticipated when the scheme was developed, and which might be advantageous, or further niche services might be identified that would not particularly affect the viability of the scheme one way or another. It would be very unsatisfactory if there were no way of allowing those services to be provided other than by formally amending the scheme. The clause would give the local transport authority the discretion to allow operators to run additional services that were not detrimental to the scheme, and those services would be registered with the traffic commissioner in the normal way.
In normal circumstances, traffic commissioners do not have the power to reject applications to register, provided the operator is licensed. It is right that the local transport authority that made the scheme in the first place should decide whether a proposed new service is compatible with the quality contracts scheme. The amendments would take that function away from the local authority and give it to the traffic commissioner. He would apparently have total discretion as to what to allow and what to reject. Although the local transport authority would be consulted, the decision would be entirely out of its hands. That would make it possible, for example, for an operator to register a service that would compete with one provided under a quality contract, possibly undermining the financial basis of the contract.
The aim of providing flexibility is to allow the local authority to say that it accepts that a particular service will not undermine the quality contracts scheme, and that it is happy for it to go ahead and for it to be registered with the traffic commissioner. We believe that the local authority that made the scheme should have the discretion to do so, and we do not believe that the decision should be handed over to the traffic commissioner. I hope that that explanation is useful and that the hon. Member for Wimbledon will withdraw his amendment.

Stephen Hammond: That was helpful in some ways, but not entirely. I was trying to explore why the traffic commissioner becomes just a middleman at this point. What is his function if he simply passes round pieces of paper? It is right that the local authority should be consulted, but ultimately the traffic commissioner should have the chance to look at the application.

Rosie Winterton: It would just mean that a service would be registered with the traffic commissioner in the normal way. As I have said, in normal circumstances, if an operator is licensed, it simply registers with the traffic commissioner. The point is that that would happen during a quality contracts scheme. In normal circumstances, it would not be allowed to register, but if the local authority agrees that it can do so, it would register in the normal way.

Stephen Hammond: Again, I was listening carefully to the Minister, and I am somewhat reassured by what she said, although I might like to test this point again on Report, if given the opportunity. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Traffic regulation conditions for anticipated traffic problems

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: For the benefit of the Committee, will the Minister put this clause into context and tell us what eventuality will be covered by it that escapes the scope of current legislation? Will the clause be used to deal with transient problems or only where there is a persistent and permanent problem or an anticipated persistent and permanent problem?

Rosie Winterton: The clause will extend the circumstances in which a traffic authority may ask the traffic commissioner to impose traffic regulation conditions on bus operators to include situations in which the authority foresees a likely traffic problem. Under current legislation, a traffic commissioner can impose traffic regulation conditions on operators of local bus services following a request by the traffic authority in response to a traffic problem in a particular area. Traffic regulation conditions may be imposed only to prevent danger to road users, to reduce severe traffic congestion or to reduce or limit noise or air pollution. The conditions are attached to the public service vehicle operators licence of the bus operators providing services in the area where the conditions apply. For example, they may prevent certain operators from using certain routes, or stipulate that operators may stop at certain places for no longer than a given time. They may also restrict the use of noisy tourist commentaries or specify minimum emissions standards.
In response to consultation on the draft Bill, a number of people told us that the problem with those provisions was that they could be used only where a problem had already arisen, resulting in a delay before the conditions could be imposed, during which time serious problems might arise, such as severe congestion and danger to road users arising from so-called bus wars. We appreciate that difficulty, so provisions in this clause mean that a traffic authority can make a request to the traffic commissioner for traffic regulation conditions to be imposed in anticipation of a problem, rather than after it has arisen, which will help traffic authorities to be proactive in dealing with potential problems. I believe that that will help reduce congestion and provide a quicker, safer and more reliable service for passengers. I hope that the Committee will support clause 45.

Greg Knight: I thank the Minister, who has answered most of my concerns, except the point I made when I caught your eye, Mr. Taylor. Will the provision be used to deal with transient problems? For example, the borough of Sandwell has an annual transport weekend on which it takes over a large field and has a display of vehicles going through the town centre. Will the provision be used to deal with such occasions, which perhaps occur only once a year, but when they do are massive, change the pattern of congestion in a town or city and clearly need to be addressed?

Rosie Winterton: The point is that they could be either. However, if the problem were transient, we would expect the traffic regulation condition to be transient as well.

Graham Stringer: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire for bringing this issue up under the clause stand part debate. I know that the Whips want us to bounce on very quickly, so I will not take much time. Will the Minister tell us whether the regulations, because they refer to the safety of passengers, will deal with the situation that arose in the north of Greater Manchester where the wheels kept falling off FirstGroups buses? This is not a joke; it was a serious danger to passengers. An inquiry found FirstGroup in Rochdale in north Greater Manchester not fit and proper to be running that route. It registered a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstGroup to run exactly the same routes. The traffic commissioner was just applying the law. The passenger transport authority, which had instigated this inquiry, was incensed, as were the travelling public. Will that anomaly and unfairness be dealt with under this or any other section?

Rosie Winterton: I believe that that would be an issue for existing road safety rules, which are for the traffic commissioner to enforce. For example, the traffic commissioner would be able, through a licence condition, to take action in that instance. I will take away my hon. Friends point and if there is different advice that I ought to be giving, I will write to members of the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part if the Bill.

Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 47

Fees for registration of services

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 242, in clause 47, page 41, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
The purpose of this probing amendment is to encourage the Minister to explain to the Committee why a bus operator should be required to pay a fee for cancelling the registration of one of its services, if that fee is beyond that which covers the administration. A fee is already payable when a service is registered under the provisions of the Transport Act 1985. The circumstances in which a fee is payable are extended by this clause so that a fee can also be incurred when a service is continued or cancelled.
I would like to be reassured by the Minister that the only purpose of charging a fee is for recovering administrative costs. If so, could she give us some indication of how she intends to give guidance on how these costs will be calculated and how the traffic commissioners are going to set these fees? Can she reassure us that they are set only at a level that covers administrative costs. I am sure that in the interests of maximum patronage, in certain areas operators must be given flexibility to respond to the demands of the travelling public. If it were a punitive fee, there would be some serious issues about what was being provided. I understand that costs must be covered, but I seek a guarantee from the Minister that the purpose of the clause is to cover administrative costs only. What guidance does she intend to give on how those administrative costs might be assessed?

Rosie Winterton: It might help if I put it in the context of what we are trying to achieve in clause 47, which will allow the Secretary of State to update the range of fees payable by the operators of local bus services. I stress that any new fees would be set out in regulations and subject to further consultation.
The regime covering the fees paid by the operators of local buses has remained unchanged for the past 20 years. Before an operator can start running a bus service, he must register the particulars of that service with the local traffic commissioner, and a fee is payable then. If he wants to vary the details of the schemefor example, by introducing a new timetable or changing the number of servicesa further fee is payable. However, he does not have to pay a fee if he cancels the service altogether, which carries a transaction charge, or if he simply leaves it as it is.
The clause will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide for fees to be payable in additional situations. For example, a fee could be charged for the cancellation of a local service. What is known as a continuation fee could also be chargedperhaps an annual fee where registration particulars are unchanged. Holders of a bus operators licence already pay a fee in order for their licence to continue in force. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out that we need to ensure that the traffic commissioners are properly resourced. They are at the heart of ensuring that bus operators deliver good services and will play an important role in enforcing the new punctuality regime. I stress that no decision has been taken to increase the fees burden on operators at this stage, but it is important to think ahead. That is why we have taken the powers. I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon will understand why we have done so and withdraw his amendment. [Interruption.]
 Stephen Hammond rose

Rosie Winterton: You werent listening, were you?

Stephen Hammond: I was listening carefully and attentively to the Minister, as ever, but I was worried that the Whips need to make progress and that the door handle might have come off. I listened carefully to what she said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 48 and 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50

Carrying of passengers in wheelchairs in vehicles providing local services

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: I have raised this matter with the Minister before. She gave me an encouraging reply, but I should like it to be placed on the record again, particularly as clause 50 relates to the carrying of passengers in wheelchairs in vehicles providing local services, and clause 51 contains supplementary provisions. I should declare an interest as chairman of the all-party historic vehicles group, but I should like the Minister again to confirm that nothing in clause 50 or clause 51 can be used to prevent historic vehicles from carrying members of the public as part of a balanced passenger transport division. That is particularly important for tourist areas where historic vehiclessome of them are not even powered by the internal combustion engine; some are steam vehiclesare still used to carry passengers. It would be an over-the-top, heavy-handed approach if they were caught by this provision.

Rosie Winterton: As the right hon. Gentleman set out, clause 50 will apply certain duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles who provide local bus services, known as taxi buses, using a wheelchair-accessible vehicle. The duties include helping a person in a wheelchair to get in and out of a taxi, carrying them in safety and comfort and not making an additional charge for doing so. The clause signals the Governments clear commitment to delivering more accessible taxis and to making it easier for disabled passengers to use public transport. This discussion refers back to our earlier discussion in which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned historic vehicles. I can assure him that this provision will not affect that. The clauses are about duties on drivers. As I said, accessibility regulations fall under part V of the DDA and relate to vehicle standards. They would be covered in that way.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51

Carrying of passengers in wheelchairs: supplementary provisions

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 259, in clause 51, page 45, line 6, leave out may and insert shall.
This simple amendment would change the word may to shall. In my view, a licensing authority ought to maintain a list of vehicles falling within subsection (2) of proposed new section 36A of the 1995 Act if it is serious about undertaking its responsibilities under that Act. It is important that it has an up-to-date picture of which vehicles are available in its area and which are not. If it only has the option of maintaining a list, there may be areas where that information is not available.
In addition, when an authority, either a different one or the same one, is proposing, say, a quality contract scheme it is important to understand the range of vehicles that are available in an area when it draws up conditions that it wishes to see under the quality contract. However, under these provisions, it may not have that information available, which is a gap that ought to be filled. Those are the reasons why I believe that the word may should be changed to shall.

Rosie Winterton: The amendment is to a clause that was inserted into the Bill in another place in response to a very well-argued proposal made by Baroness Chapman, who is certainly a doughty campaigner on this issue. The clause, in conjunction with clause 50, will place certain duties on the drivers of wheelchair-accessible taxi busesthat is, taxis and private hire vehicles used to provide local bus serviceswhen carrying passengers in wheelchairs. The provisions will make it optional for local authorities to maintain a list of such wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Once such a list was in place, the duties in section 36 of the 1995 Act would apply to the drivers of taxi buses designated as wheelchair accessible. Those duties include helping a person in a wheelchair to get in and out of a taxi, carrying them in safety and comfort and not making an additional charge for doing so. Failure to observe the duties could lead to a criminal prosecution and fine.
The amendment would place an obligation on all local licensing authorities to maintain a list of vehicles being used to provide wheelchair accessible taxi buses. However, we do not think that that is either necessary or desirable. As I have said, the Bill allows local licensing authorities the option of maintaining the list if they have wheelchair accessible taxi buses that provide services in their area and they decide to designate them. That is in line with the Governments general policy on taxis.
Local licensing authorities are normally given particular powers, but they are able to use their own discretion about whether to use them. There are about only 200 taxi buses that provide local bus services, although we hope that that figure will rise as a result of other provisions in the Bill. Only some of those taxi buses will be wheelchair accessible. Also, not all local licensing authorities will have taxi buses operating in their area, so there will be no need either to designate wheelchair accessible taxi buses or to maintain a list.
I understand the thrust of the amendment, but it would place an unnecessary burden on local authorities. I hope that I can therefore persuade the hon. Member for Lewes to withdraw the amendment.

Norman Baker: I am not sure that the amendment would be an unnecessary burden on local authorities if they had to make a nil return each year, which is what the Minister implied in relation to not many local authorities having taxi buses. If there are only 200 taxi buses in the countryshe accepts that the number should increaseone way to secure an increase is perhaps for local authorities to realise through the mandatory compilation of a list just how few they have in their areas and how difficult it is for those with disabilities to get around because of the absence of such vehicles.
The Minister has given me no confidence that the current system will engender an increase of the kind that she and I wish to see. She also has not taken account of the other points that I made, such as the need to be able to take a quick metaphorical photograph of how many vehicles there are in an area, for future planning purposes. However, I do not intend to go to the stake over this, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Permits in relation to use of vehicles by educational and other bodies

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: I rise to ask the Minister to clarify the intention of the clause. The Transport Act 1985 enables permits to be granted to educational, religious, social, welfare and other bodies so that they do not need a public service vehicle operator licence. Is it the purpose of the clause to take that to a new level? I understand that the 1985 Act covers all possible vehicles, so does the clause mean that if a vehicle carries fewer than nine passengers no permit will be required, and that therefore an educational body that operates a vehicle with fewer than nine seats will not require a permit as per the 1985 Act?

Rosie Winterton: Clause 53 will make amendments that are consequential to the provision in clause 52, which extends the scope of section 19 permits to cover vehicles with fewer than nine seats. Such vehicles are not what most of us would consider a bus. That will allow educational and other bodies to provide transport services for their members. Clause 52 will also strengthen the requirements on bodies to keep records to aid better enforcement.
Clause 52 extends the scope of section 19 permits to cover vehicles with fewer than nine seats. As the hon. Gentleman says, the amendment replaces bus with vehicle in the relevant legislation. The provision will ensure that those bodies can use vehicles with fewer than nine sets for educational and other transport, but because the vehicle might not be what most of us would recognise as a bus, we have changed its title from bus to vehicle.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

relaxation of rules relating to community bus services

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 243, in clause 54, page 47, line 33, at end insert
(4A) In subsection (2)(b) after permit, insert or has undertaken such training for drivers of vehicles for the purpose of community transport as the Secretary of State shall by order define..
(4B) In subsection (2) after paragraph (c) insert
(d) the driver is not employed by, nor is the vehicle owned by, an operator whose annual turnover is more than £150,000 per annum, or such higher amount as the Secretary of State may by order define..
As I said on Second Reading, any proposals with the consequence of helping community transport will certainly enjoy my support, and the clause will do that by allowing larger vehicles to be used for community transport and by removing the prohibition on paying drivers of community transport vehicles.
The clause is very welcome, but not perfect. I have two major concerns, which are reflected in my proposals. The first proposal is important, because it goes to the question of safety. We want to introduce words that would ensure that community transport drivers were adequately trained. Later this year, a new certificate of professional competence will be introduced for drivers of other buses and coaches. The CPC will be issued on behalf of the Department for Transport, in accordance with the law, and will be a requirement for all professional bus drivers, in addition to a driving licence.
Rightly in my opinion, the CPC is not a requirement for drivers of community vehicleswe want to establish greater community transport. However, there is specialist community transport training available in the form of MIDASthe minibus driver awareness scheme. Therefore, although community transport drivers do not face the higher test, the lower test would help to ensure safety. MIDAS addresses issues such as driver confidence and passenger safety and comfort. That is a useful way forward and something that the Secretary of State could define by order: community transport drivers would get the specialist training required for their vehicles, giving reassurance to those using that transport but without having to fulfil the much higher test.
Another proposal looks at what we might call the social businesses or the not-for-dividend sector. A number of community transport schemes provide an excellent service, but I am concerned at the scope for some non-professional bus operators to take advantage of a loophole in the legislation. There are a number of operators who turn over large amounts and who, potentially, would not require a licence.
I want to ensure that cowboy operations do not take advantage of the rules for community transport providers. The amendment relates to those community transport organisations, which are clearly focused on being not for dividend, although they follow some commercial strictures. For example, we all know that Ealing Community Transport provides an excellent service across the country and it decidedly could not be called a cowboy. However, unless there is a turnover testI am not sure that I have got the turnover level rightthe clause could become a loophole for cowboys to provide a service under the guise of community transport, which is a term that should describe organisations that provide transport in communities for those who have difficulty getting around or that provide a service in excess of the norm. Perhaps a number of charities and others would use it.
These proposals are important. Will the Minister give reassurance that the turnover test is not necessary? If it is not necessary, will she explain how cowboy bus operators will be prevented from using the clause? Will she also us why the lower level of driver training cannot be put in place relatively cheaply to provide some reassurance to those people who will use community transport?

Rosie Winterton: The measure is extremely popular and it has been widely welcomed by the community transport sector for two reasons: it will allow community bus services to use larger buses and remove the restriction that prevents drivers of those services from being paid. That welcome from the community transport sector is one reason why I was surprised that Opposition Front Benchers voted against the Bill on Second Reading. We will all have received representations from our constituents who have tried to run those excellent services but have been constrained in how they can do so.
The clause relates to the section 22 permits that are available to the operators of community bus services. The services we discussed before were the section 19 aspect of community service. Section 22 permits allow a non-profit-making voluntary body that is concerned with the social and welfare needs of a community to provide local bus services for the general public. Unlike section 19 permits, they can be issued only by the traffic commissioners, who must be satisfied that the body using the permit has adequate maintenance arrangements.
As I said, operators who provide services under the permits are restricted to using vehicles that can carry between nine and 16 passengers. The clause will enable buses with more than 16 passenger seats to be used to provide community transport services under section 22 permits.
Also under current legislation, drivers of such services cannot be paid, as I said. However, many people, particularly from the community transport sector, told the Government that that places an unnecessary restriction on the provision of the services, because it is often not possible for community groups to find enough volunteer drivers to run them. The clause will remove that restriction.

Graham Stringer: I hope that the answer to this question, which my right hon. Friend might send in a letter, will allow us not to have a debate on new clause 1. Will these drivers be subject to the same vetting procedures as drivers of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles? Will they have to be a fit and proper person? Preferably, they will be vetted in relation to whether they are on the sex offenders register.

Rosie Winterton: The clause will require operators of community transport services to check that every person driving a vehicle on their behalf is not on the sex offenders register.

Stephen Hammond: Does that include a Criminal Records Bureau check?

Rosie Winterton: I want to address the point on the public sex offenders register, which is what I think the

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

On resuming

Rosie Winterton: I refer back to the point that I made in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley, which referenced his new clause, which would require operators of community transport services to check that everybody driving a vehicle on their behalf is not registered on the sex offenders register. I want to make it clear that the Bill does not provide for that, but I emphasise the existing safeguards and checks on community transport drivers. Much of the work of community transport organisations will be done under a contract to a local authority or other public body, which can make it a condition of contract that the drivers used have all been subject to a criminal record check. Where necessary, that check can be to the enhanced level of enclosure to provide all the information to the Criminal Records Bureau.
In addition, the Government are now implementing the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, which obtained Royal Assent in November 2006, and which was introduced specifically in response to recommendation 19 of the Bichard inquiry report. The Act provides the legal framework for the new independent safeguarding authority scheme. Under the SVG Act, those who exclusively transport children and/or vulnerable adults are subject to the requirements of the new scheme. The ISAs role will be to consider all relevant information relating to the risk of harm posed by persons seeking to work with children or vulnerable adults in either a paid or voluntary capacity, and to bar those considered unsuitable for such work. The scheme will be launched in October 2009; that will allow systems to be developed and legislation laid, and it will give organisations time to prepare for the introduction of the most robust and thorough vetting and barring scheme.
I will ensure that the Home Office is aware of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley about drivers of community transport. As I said, new clause 1 is not included in our debate, but I shall ensure that the Home Office is aware of what has been said.
As for amendment No. 243, moved by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, I can tell him that safety is obviously an important consideration in the operation of community transport. However, we have to consider whether there is a problem and if so whether what he proposes is the right solution. Section 22 operators are a relatively rare breed, and we obviously cannot draw many conclusions about their safety record from that small sample. When we consider the much larger body of community transport that operates under section 19 permits, which includes both paid and unpaid volunteer drivers, there is no evidence that volunteer drivers are unsafe compared to those driving similar vehicles commercially.
Road accident statistics are generally based on vehicle type rather than usage. The minibus category is split three waysbetween purely private use, the voluntary sector and the commercial sector. The safety record is pretty high across the board. Only recently did it become a legal requirement for commercial bus drivers to undergo formal training, as distinct from passing the appropriate driving test, although the requirement does not come into force until September. At the moment, therefore, we do not have much evidence about its effect on road safety.
I accept that the amendment would not require the full rigours of the commercial training regime to be imposed on voluntary drivers, although that would be the logical outcome of the arguments being put forward. The voluntary sector itself provides a great deal of training. For good reasons, it has always done so. Apart from the question of public safety, it would not be sensible to put rather expensive vehicles into the hands of incompetent drivers.
I am not opposed to training, but the question is one of proportionality. We have to bear in mind that if we were to require the community transport sector to undertake what could be fairly rigorous training, it would place quite a burden on it. We must put that in the context of the later part of the amendment, which is about a scheme being not for profit.
The existing regulation-making power could be used to impose a training requirement on the drivers of vehicles used under section 22 permits. That is already in the Bill, so that part of the hon. Gentlemans amendment is unnecessary for technical reasons. Although I am rejecting the amendment, I assure him that I do not rule out the introduction of a driver training requirement if a real need for it is identified in future.

Stephen Hammond: The Minister says that the amendment is technically unnecessary because there is something else about training in the Bill. Will she tell us where in the Bill it is?

Rosie Winterton: As it happens, it is under section 21 of the Transport Act 1985.

Stephen Hammond: Divine inspiration.

Rosie Winterton: I turn to the second part of the amendment, which would place a limit on the annual turnover of a community bus operator. It has always been a requirement of the permit regimes for the voluntary sector that buses are not operated with a view to profit, either directly or indirectly. I understand that the bodies that currently operate under section 22 permits are very small, and that the services that they operate are, almost by definition, ones that would not be of interest to a commercial operator.
We hope that such services will expand; members of the Committee have already made points about the rural bus sector. Such services provide the community transport sector with a lot of opportunities to expand, but I do not imagine that it will be in a position to compete with commercial operators, nor do I believe that it would want to. That part of the amendment is, therefore, not necessary either, because it is already covered in the permit regime. I hope that has answered the questions asked by the hon. Member for Wimbledon.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about cowboys, and I draw his attention to section 22(3) of the 1985 Act, which states:
A traffic commissioner shall not grant a community bus permit unless he is satisfied that there will be adequate facilities or arrangements for maintaining in a fit and serviceable condition any vehicle used under the permit.
I hope that I have illustrated that although I understand the hon. Gentlemans points about safety and not-for-profit restrictions, those matters are adequately covered under the current system.

Stephen Hammond: The Minister has come a long way towards my position. In 1985, the Conservative Administration obviously had the foresight to bring in measures that she believes I do not need to insert into the Bill. I think that she would none the less agreethis is one reason why I wished to explore the matterthat the clause potentially allows a larger number of drivers in the community transport field, in some cases driving bigger vehicles than they have driven before. The whole matter of safety must be considered, and I hope that the Minister will think again. My amendment does not specify what has to be done, but it gives the Secretary of State the chance to define safety training by order at some stage. That is extremely important, as my concern is that the Bill will widen the field of people who operate the vehicles in question.

Norman Baker: It is my understanding that drivers who want to drive public vehicles with more than 16 seats have to acquire public service vehicle approval. Far more training would be required to drive a vehicle with 16 seats so, in a sense, although I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentlemans point, I assume that the extra training is already in place to some degree.

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Gentleman may be right. Some of that training might be in place. None the less, specialist training is available for community transport under MIDAS, which is why I hoped that the Minister would mention it.
I come now to my point about cowboys. The Conservative Administration again showed great foresight in 1985. I was talking not about vehicles and safety requirements, but those operating them as a commercial route and not following all the necessary requirements, when the route was intended to be a community transport route. I hear what the Minister had to say, but that is not the representation I have received from various parts of the industry. There is real concern that roguerather than cowboyoperators might try to use the community transport clause that we all support and want to work as a means of getting round some of the provisions that would usually be set, which is why the test is in place.
I have listened carefully to the Minister and to her reassurances that my amendment is technically not necessary. I shall be watching matters closely. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56

Traffic commissioners to keep records about such permits

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: I have no particular concern about the clause, but I just want to check with the Minister that the traffic commissioners will keep records of such permits. Can she confirm that such permits will be open for public inspection as will the detail of what the permits grant?

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend has asked one of the questions that I was about to ask the Minister. Who will be able to see the permits? For how long will the records need to be kept? What length of time will the data have to be kept on file?

Rosie Winterton: As Conservative Members have said, the clause will require traffic commissioners to keep records of community transport permits granted by them and copies of permits submitted to them by designated bodies. It is important that we have a better record than we do at the moment of what community transport services operate. The existing legislation does not place an obligation on the traffic commissioners to keep records of permits, although we understand that records are held by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency on their behalf. As I said, we believed that it was important to improve our record keeping of community transport operators and that it was right to impose a requirement on traffic commissioners similar to that on designated bodies.
As for how long the data would need to be kept, obviously it would need to be retained while the permit was in force. Other provisions in the Bill will introduce time-limited permits. One of the issues that has come up is that some permits were given out that had perhaps expired a long time before. For the community transport sector as a whole, it is important to have not only good records, but up-to-date records and to know exactly what is in operation at a particular time. Some difficulties had arisen previously where permits had been given out, the service had completely stopped operating, but nobody had any idea about it. As to who will be able to see the records, I shall have to write to the hon. Member for Wimbledon about that. I cannot see that there would be any problem with there being a public record of what permits were available. However, I would like to take the opportunity to check that and ensure that in any consultation we have done with the community transport world we have explored the options, so I shall come back to the Committee on that.

Greg Knight: I do not want to make a meal of this. I think that the Minister has been helpful, but may I make two points? First, would she write to all members of the Committee and not just to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon on that particular point? Secondly, would she be prepared to reflect on the length of time these records should be kept? For example, there did not use to be a legal duty on lawyers in the United Kingdom to keep the papers when they had finished a case, but most lawyers now keep the papers for about seven years in case an issue arises after the matter is finalised, where the papers can be of help. I realise that this situation is not entirely on all fours with what lawyers do with case paperwork, but an issue may arise after a permit expires for which it would be helpful to see the document itself, to see if any conditions were imposed in it and so on.
Perhaps the Minister could reflect on that and tell us on Report whether she feelsI am not suggesting that it should go into the Bill, but perhaps it should be in practice directionsthat it is something on which she would want to advise the traffic commissioners.

Rosie Winterton: I shall certainly consider whether there might be circumstances where retaining the paperwork was appropriate, and the reasons for doing so. I would not like to ask the traffic commissioners to maintain excessive amounts of information, but I am prepared to ask the community transport sector whether that is something that would be helpful. I do not think that that would be a matter for the face of the Bill, but it might be something that we could talk to the traffic commissioners about in guidance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57

Attachment of conditions to related licences

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 244, in clause 57, page 49, line 14, leave out from to to end of line 20 and insert
the licence mentioned in subsection (1) above.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 245, in clause 57, page 49, line 21, leave out conditions are and insert condition is.
No. 246, in clause 57, page 49, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).
No. 253, in clause 57, page 50, line 8, leave out from to to a in line 9 and insert
the licence mentioned in subsection (5) above.
No. 254, in clause 57, page 50, leave out lines 11 to 17.

Stephen Hammond: This string of amendments relates to the power of the traffic commissioner to attach conditions to operator licences. These conditions can be attached if the operator in question has failed to comply with the requirements and specifications of his licence. Such conditions can relate to the specific vehicles that can or cannot be used by the offending operator. Broadly, that is something that everybody will support, but the detail of clause 57 contains a much wider extension to the power of the traffic commissioner and I am not sure whether the Government meant that intentionally.
I am looking for some reassurance from the Minister regarding the Governments intention, for the clause will enable the traffic commissioner to attach conditions not only to the licence of which the requirements have been breached, but to other licences held by that operator, and even to licences held by other operators connected with the offending operator. I am worried that those powers are excessive in the extreme, and that the punishment would be worse than the crime.
It seems wholly inappropriate that if an operator breaches the rules of its licence, another operator, even a related or subsidiary company, can be punished for the same offence, unless the traffic commissioner were going to attach conditions to all those licences as well. I cannot think of similar circumstances where such wide and varied penalties have been proposed.
Furthermore, if an operator holds several licences and one of them is breached, is it fair that every other licence could have conditions attached to it? The licences could relate to different types of service, for instance.
Obviously, the traffic commissioner needs the function to attach conditions to a licence if the licence is breached by the operator, but the powers that clause 57 gives him are much wider than that. Was that the Governments intention, and, if so, in what circumstances does the Minister envisage those wide and excessive powers being used?

Rosie Winterton: As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendments would, in effect, negate the purpose of clause 57, which is to extend the powers of traffic commissioners to take enforcement action against operators who fail to provide services of a satisfactory standard. It is the first of three clauses that will give traffic commissioners new or enhanced powers.
At present, traffic commissioners have at their disposal several powers that they can use to take action against operators who are not delivering a reliable service, who are not delivering the services that they said they would deliver, or who are using vehicles that do not meet the necessary safety standards. One of those powers is that the traffic commissioner can attach conditions to an operators licence. The conditions can be used to prevent the operator from providing certain services, and can even go so far as to prohibit an operator from operating any bus services at all in a particular area.
That is an effective tool, but there are several difficulties with it. When we debated part 1 of the Bill, I referred to the fact that Great Britain is divided into eight traffic areas. When an operator applies for a public service vehicle operators licence, he must apply to the traffic commissioner for the traffic area in which the vehicles are based. Those vehicles may then be used anywhere in Great Britain. But a large operator with vehicles based in more than one traffic area will have separate licences for different traffic areas.
Under the current legislation, it is generally accepted that there is no power for a traffic commissioner to attach conditions to a licence held by an operator in another traffic area. This means that even if conditions are imposed, an operator can continue to provide services under a licence held in a different traffic area unless and until the appropriate traffic commissioner takes action against him.
There is also no power for a traffic commissioner to prevent operators from circumventing the effect of licence conditions by transferring the operation of services to a subsidiary of the same holding group of companies. Such potential loopholes weaken the powers of the traffic commissioner to take action if operators are failing.
The clause will give traffic commissioners the option, where conditions have been attached to an operators licence, to direct a traffic commissioner in a different traffic area to attach conditions to other licences held by the company. The other traffic commissioner could refuse only if there were good reason to do so.
The clause will also give traffic commissioners powers to attach conditions to licences held by operators connected with the original, defaulting operator, such as subsidiaries of the same holding company. I hope that the Committee will agree that it is only right that a bus operator should not be able to use the current limitations on the imposition of conditions on licences to circumvent enforcement action and, by doing so, to continue to operate bad services. That is exactly why clause 57 is in the Bill.
The hon. Gentlemans amendments would undo those important changes, leaving operators the opportunity to continue to circumvent enforcement action. Moreover, amendments Nos. 245 and 246 would go even further, watering down existing powers so that traffic commissioners would no longer be able to impose a licence condition preventing a licence holder from operating any services in a particular area. Because the group of amendments would undermine the whole purpose of clause 57 and leave traffic commissioners with even weaker enforcement powers than they have at the moment, I cannot accept them, and I urge the Committee to reject them. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw them.

Stephen Hammond: I am not sure whether I agree with the Ministers contention that the amendments would weaken the existing powers. I accept the possible need for an arrangement for holding companies or subsidiary companies, so that licences could not be switched from one company to another, as that would clearly not be right. I am still not convinced that she has addressed the point about the traffic commissioners greatly increased powers under the clause. The powers could give the traffic commissioner the ability to impose conditions on the licences of operators that are related, although not through a holding company arrangement. I may wish to consider the matter again on Report, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Powers of traffic commissioners where services not operated as registered

John Leech: I beg to move amendment No. 260, in clause 58, page 51, line 25, leave out from and to end of line 27 and insert to the local traffic authority.
The amendment would require that, where a bus service is not operating as registered and the traffic commissioner, after investigating, issues a report recommending remedial measures, a copy must be sent to the local traffic authority, regardless of whether the local traffic authority is expected to take remedial action. The Bill stipulates that a report must be sent to the local traffic authority only if it must implement any of the recommended remedial measures. The explanatory notes give an example where the local traffic authority might be expected to make changes to help with bus punctuality. There will be occasions on which the local traffic authority is not expected to take any remedial action, but we believe that it should be informed about what action bus operators are to take, regardless of whether it is expected to do anything.

Rosie Winterton: Clause 58 is extremely important. In response to consultation and discussions on the Bill, many people told us that poor punctuality sometimes occurs when the local traffic authority is failing in its duties, perhaps because it is not taking appropriate action against parking or bus lane contraventions, or because poorly planned road works are disrupting bus routes. The clause will give traffic commissioners the power to hold traffic authorities to account where their actions are part of the problem.

Graham Stringer: If I remember rightly, about two and half years ago, in answer to a parliamentary question about responsibility for traffic delays and congestion, one of the Ministers predecessors said that two thirds of the problems with late buses were caused by the bus operators themselves. Does she have an update on that figure? That is an important matter, because part of the large bus operators propaganda is that it is always the local authorities fault. In fact, it is usually their own fault for not having the right engineering facilities or drivers available.

Rosie Winterton: I do not have an update on that figure, although I accept what my hon. Friend says. As I said, however, we cannot ignore some of the results of the consultation on the draft Bill, which showed that it is important to ensure that local authorities fulfil their side of the bargain.

John Leech: The point of the amendment is not to suggest that local authorities are never responsible, because they clearly cause some of the problems, whether to do with congestion or whatever. I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley: most of the time the operators are at fault. The amendment would ensure that local authorities are informed of what actions need to be taken, regardless of whether they have to take remedial action. That is not to suggest that they should absolve themselves of any responsibility.

Rosie Winterton: I accept that point; I was simply explaining the background to clause 58 and why it is important. The approach taken in the clause is the right one. The traffic commissioner should send a copy of any report to the relevant operator and, if any of the remedial measures are for implementation by a local traffic authority, to that authority. However, the hon. Gentlemans amendment would require a copy of every report to be sent to the local traffic authority regardless of whether any of the measures were for implementation by the authority.
I accept that the local authority might have an interest occasionally, and it would be possible for the local traffic commissioner to send a copy to the local authority if that were the case. However, I feel that the approach in the hon. Gentlemans amendment would be too burdensome. We believe that it is better for the local traffic commissioner to have discretion over which authorities should receive particular reports, rather than to be prescriptive in the Bill. In view of that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

John Leech: I will withdraw my amendment, although we might want to revisit the issue on Report. However, I do not quite accept that it would be too burdensome to send the local transport authority a copy of the report that is sent to the operator. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

Additional sanctions for failures by bus operators

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 247, in clause 59, page 53, line 5, leave out from money to end of line 7.
The amendment deals with a very specific power of the traffic commissioner. I welcome and support the general thrust of clause 59, which states that, when an operator is fined by the traffic commissioner, the money must be invested either in the provision of local services or used to compensate passengers on such services. That is clearly sensible and laudable. If passengers suffer as a result of poor services, it is only right that the fines should be used to improve the services or directly compensate passengers.
I can think of other areas of transport in which such an approach might be welcomed. When Network Rail was fined by the regulator for disruption to passengers over new year, the money went straight to the Exchequer and not back into rail improvements. Perhaps the Minister could impress it on her colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), that a similar approach in that field would be welcomed as well.
To return to my amendment and compensating bus passengers, the clause says that the compensation can take the form of payments of money or such form, including the provision of free travel or travel at a reduced price, as is specified. That raises a number of questions about whether or not the latter part is tightly defined or clear enough. For example, does it mean that only passengers previously affected by the poor provision of service will be offered free or reduced travel? Or does it mean that travel on the offending routes will be free or reduced for a period of time, which would benefit people who had not previously been caught up? Therefore, if an operator was obliged to offer the latterthe free or reduced travel for a periodit could result in some unintended consequences.
I am in favour of fining the operators if they fail to provide the right service and of reinvesting the money or giving it to those who need to be compensated. The best way for that to happen and to ensure that there is no ambiguityunless the Minister wishes to add some other words to the clauseis to make a direct monetary payment to the passengers.

Rosie Winterton: What we want to achieve is to give a traffic commissioner more choice in the sanctions that can be imposed against operators in such circumstances. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that a traffic commissioner can fine an operator up to £550 for every vehicle operated under the licence. That penalty is paid into the general fund. The problem is that that could worsen the position for passengers, because the operator may simply pass on the cost of that fine through higher fares without making any improvement to the services. When an operator provides a bad service, there should be a way in which sanctions can be used to bring direct benefit to those passengers who have been affected. Ideas, such as offering free or reduced travel, were developed in collective discussions in the Bus Partnership Forum, which is a collective of industry, local authorities and others, including the senior traffic commissioner.
By giving traffic commissioners a range of options, they will be able to assess what is right on a case-by-case basis, taking into account local circumstances. Sometimes, it might be appropriate to give some free or reduced fare travel. Having that flexibility can only add value to the work of the traffic commissioners. If the operator was not happy with the sanction that had been taken, it has the right to appeal to the Transport Tribunal. I hope that the Committee will agree that these are sensible additions to the tools available to traffic commissioners and that the hon. Member for Wimbledon can be persuaded to withdraw his amendment.

Stephen Hammond: I am always open to persuasion if the argument is full of good reason. I am prepared to accept that the traffic commissioner should have a range of tools available to him, although I prefer the reinvestment in local bus services. I can see that he may wish to direct free travel or whatever, but the question remains that there may be an unintended consequence of people trying to use that free travel even though he did not intend them to do so. None the less, we will not go to the stake on this one. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 248, in clause 59, page 53, line 30, leave out from to to , and in line 31 and insert the appropriate local authority.
We have agreed the principle that the traffic commissioner should have the right to impose sanctions, and one of those sanctions is that the money from fines should be reinvested in the bus service in the area. Under the amendment, any fines payable under the clause would be payable to the local authority and not, as the clause is currently drafted, to the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers. That is appropriate: it fits in with the nature of the bus industry, which is a very local industry. As we have stressed throughout proceedings on the Bill, the local authority should have a key role in determining the provision of bus services in the area. That function is carried out by local transport authorities and local operators, so having any proceeds of fines paid to national Government is an anomaly in comparison with the rest of the Bill. I strongly believe that the proceeds of fines should be reinvested in the bus services, and that that should be done by the appropriate local authority, not by moneys going to the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers.

John Leech: I do not intend to say much on the amendment; I just want to support it strongly. It is very important that where services have been affected locally, the proceeds of fines go into improving local services. It is completely appropriate that, rather than going to the Secretary of State, the money should be reinvested locally.

Rosie Winterton: I would not like to raise expectations unduly, but the amendment does raise some interesting points. I am not sure, however, that it would work. It does not, for example, talk about ring-fencing, and there are difficulties with the suggestion, but I am prepared to have a look at the points that the hon. Member for Wimbledon has made. As I said, there are difficulties. I am not sure whether the proposal fits in with other cases, as we would require local authorities to spend money on a particular area, which carries with it certain considerations. However, I am prepared to look further at whether there would be benefits for passengers. Discussion would be required with a number of other Departments, particularly the Treasury, with regard to directing funds to a particular area. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman that it will be possible to introduce an amendment, but I will certainly give the proposal careful consideration.

Stephen Hammond: After seven and a half sittings, that is probably as near as I am going to get in persuading the Minister to agree to one of my amendments. I hope that she will put the point to the Treasury carefully, stating that it is road user charges that are being reinvested and that this is not about hypothecation of tax. I am sure that the Treasury will see the wisdom of the amendment and that, on Report, the Minister will introduce something similar. Following her reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: I shall not detain the Committee long. However, I would like the Minister to confirm that her understanding of proposed new subsection (1A)(d) of section 155 of the Transport Act 2000 is the same as mine and that the power being given to the Secretary of State, in respect of England, and to Welsh Ministers, in respect of Wales, relates only to the range of sanctions available, and that it is not a power to intervene in any specific case.

Rosie Winterton: That is correct.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60

Operational data

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Graham Stringer: In my quest to make the Whips lives that much easier, I thought that it would be worthwhile to ask some questions and make some statements on this clause to save us having a debate on new clause 10. The purpose of the previous three or four clauses that we have debate is to increase the enforcement powers of the traffic commissioners and to help them to deal with bus services that do not comply with registration requirements. Clause 60 deals with the prevention of the misuse of records and the need to make them available for inspection. It seems to me that both aims are quite worthy; I agree with them and support the clause.
If, however, we really want to check rogue and cowboy operators, both large and small, it would be worth while ensuring that bus companies have real-time, global positioning system information available, and requiring them to keep that information on a historical basis. We have only to talk to drivers, certainly of the larger bus companies in Greater Manchester, such as Stagecoach and FirstGroup, and they will explain very quickly that if they are running behind schedule, they will either miss out stops or take shortcuts, and that they will not comply with their registration. However, the records will show that they left on time and arrived on time. They will not show that they did not travel along the right route.
The only way for commissioners or any inspection body ever to get that right is for accurate GPS information to be made available in real time and kept for historical inspection purposes. That is the purpose of new clause 10, but it might save time if, in considering clause 60, my right hon. Friend would recognise that problem and agree that there are more effective forms of record keeping.

Rosie Winterton: As my hon. Friend said, the clause will enable traffic commissioners to impose sanctions on operators who fail to meet statutory requirements to provide bus punctuality. It is important that we ensure that traffic commissioners have access to regular and accurate information on the punctuality of bus services, enabling them to pinpoint areas of consistent underperformance. That will enable them to investigate the underlying causes.
My hon. Friend made a good point about GPS systems and ensuring that, as far as possible, bus operators use them. However, we should seek to achieve that in other ways. When we talk about quality partnership schemes and quality contracts, the thrust of the Bill enables local authorities to have greater discussions with bus operators about the use of such equipment to ensure that proper records are kept. That is not something that we want covered under primary legislation, but it is an extremely important point. There are areas in the country where, for example, local authorities have invested with bus operators in installing GPS to enable them to have joint information about punctuality and important real-time information. When local authorities want to say that the next bus arrives in 10 minutes and so on, they often need the support that comes with GPS to be able to do so.
While I take my hon. Friends point about supporting the idea of giving more power to traffic commissioners to request information about bus punctuality, it means that local authorities will be able to work with bus operators and that, in some cases, reaching agreement about the fact that they would like buses operating with the GPS if that were appropriate in their area. However, we can address such issues in other ways rather than through primary legislation. I have especially in mind the fact that, as he is aware, technology can move on. I am sure that we want not want to be restricted to one type of technology under the Bill when other types might become available in future.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61

Revival of certain powers of PTEs

John Leech: I beg to move amendment No. 261, in clause 61, page 54, line 26, at end insert
(2) After subsection (1)(vii) insert
(viia) to require operators of public passenger services (within the meaning of section 9A) to display within any vehicle or premises used for providing those services information appropriate to enable users of those services to make representations (including complaints) about them to the Executive.
(viib) as a result of any representations (including complaints) it has received from users of public passenger services pursuant to subsection (1)(viia), to make and publish recommendations or representations in such manner and to such persons as the Executive sees fit..
The amendment is fairly self-explanatory. It would require bus operators to display information in their vehicles and bus stations that detail how a customer can make a suggestion or a complaint about the services that they operate to the relevant passenger transport executive. It would also mean that the PTE could use the suggestions and complaints to inform any recommendations that it might wish to make about bus services. For example, it might want to inform the revamped Passenger Focus or the Secretary of State.
The problem is that much of the time people do not know to whom to make a complaint. Passengers get on buses and inevitably the person to whom they complain is the bus driver. Iand I am sure that this is the case for other hon. Members, toohave been told by numerous constituents who, having followed through their complaint or suggestion about the service to a bus driver, were told that the operator of the service knew nothing about it. That is mainly because the bus driver is too busy and forgets that a complaint or a suggestion was made or that such matters just never filter back to those who should handle such matters. The amendment would give people clear information about whom they can contact or speak to, and to whom they can make a complaint or suggestion. It is eminently sensible, and I hope that that the Government will take it on board.

Rosie Winterton: I certainly agree that there should be clear information available to bus and coach passengers about how and to whom they can make comments or complaints about the service they are using. That issue came up time and again in consultation. In response to the debate on the matter in the other place, the Government amended the Bill on Report to insert what is now clause 70. That clause will give powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to require certain persons to display particular information in appropriate places. That could go wider than just information about complaints. What we have in mind is local authorities, bus companies and scheduled coach operators being required to display on passenger vehicles, at bus stops and bus stations or in timetable leaflets the contact information for customer service and passenger representation. Those notices might also be used to raise awareness of the new bus passenger champion and to ensure that passengers have appropriate customer service contact details.
It is more appropriate to have the powers as laid out in clause 70 than to give powers to PTEs, which would be the effect of the amendment. First, the suggested powers would help only passengers who lived and travelled in PTE areas; they would not help to address issues in other parts of the country. Secondly, we want to ensure consistency throughout England in the information available to passengers. That will be more effectively achieved by the appropriate power being with the Secretary of State.
In a sense, the amendment would also address complaints against the operator, but there might be instances where passengers wish to complain about a local authorityfor example, if it is not enforcing bus lanes properly. The powers in clause 70 will allow the appropriate information to be provided to passengers who want to make such complaints.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington that I take the issue of information about complaints seriously. We feel that the amendments that we have made through clause 70 are a more appropriate way to deal with that. With that reassurance, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

John Leech: We may return to the issue on Report, but with that reassurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Stringer: I beg to move amendment No. 128, in clause 61, page 55, line 2, after under, insert section 10(1)(i) or.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 129, in clause 61, page 55, leave out line 8.
No. 130, in clause 61, page 55, line 10, at end insert
(7) For subsection (1)(i) (power of PTE to carry passengers by road) substitute
(i) in the event that a quality contract is terminated or local services provided under it cease in whole or in part to be provided, to carry passengers by road within, to and from that area for the purpose of maintaining local services provided under the quality contract for so long as is required to procure another person to provide such services under the relevant quality contracts scheme;.

Graham Stringer: The amendment was introduced and debated in the House of Lords, so I will not repeat everything that was said there, although the Governments arguments for not accepting it were quite weak.
The amendment would allow passenger transport executives or integrated transport authorities to be the operator of last resort if a bus company decided to move its fleet out if it went bankrupt or for some other reason could no longer operate services. It may be that no other bus operators in the area could come in and immediately replace the existing operator. The Governments argument against is that the PTEthe integrated transport authoritywould have to comply with EU regulations, be competent in the PTE operational scheme, and have managerial competences and certification.
That is a lot of words, but when we consider some bus companies, which in effect are run by a couple of men and their dogthe purpose of the 1985 Act was to allow small bus companies to compete with large ones, among othersthose words do not seem to carry much weight.
It is not expected that operator of last resort will be used on many occasions. In fact, it will probably be used very infrequently. Not for the first time in this debate, we can look for similar situations elsewhere. With rail franchises, we find that Network Railpreviously Railtrack, I believehas the power to be the operator of last resort. In fact, in the south-east, it became the operator of last resort for a time. In the London system, Transport for London has the authority to be the operator of last resort, although I think that London is probably one of the last places where that power would need to be taken up.
It seems slightly unreasonable not to have something in the Bill that may be used only occasionallyin an emergency. If it were used, it could be useful as a benchmarking exercise to see how a locally run, publicly initiated bus company operated against many of the private operators.
It is unlikely that this section of the Bill will be used, but we have the opportunity to include a measure that may be used occasionally, or hardly ever, and it seems unreasonable not to take it. At some future time, somewhere in the country, somebody might regret it if we do not do so.

Ian Stewart: It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr. Taylor. Earlier today, I highlighted instances where I felt there would be the need to allow transport authorities to be the operator of last resort, and I hope that the Minister heard as well as listened. I know that she listened, but I hope that she heard the example that I gave of a quality contracts scheme being awarded and an operator walking away from an existing contract that it provides. In such circumstances, residents, passengers and workers would be left in an insecure situation.
Over the past 10 years, I have argued in the House that it would be sensible to allow passenger transport authorities to be an operator of last resort for all sorts of different reasons. If the Government were to accept that there will be unusual circumstances in which no provider is left, a local transport authority could make provision almost as a stop-gap until such time as a private operator was found to deliver the service.
Indeed, I would like to go further and say that that should be encouraged in a wider sense, so that transport authorities could provide a service but on a temporary basis. I hope that the Minister will listen and hear what hon. Members have said.

Rosie Winterton: As my hon. Friends know, the main purpose of clause 61 is to put PTEs on equal footing with other local transport authorities. While those other authorities do not have a specific power to lease buses to operators, they do so by using their general well-being powers under local government legislation. The PTEs are in a different positionfirst, because they have no well-being powers and, secondly, their explicit power under the Transport Act 1968 to lease out buses was disapplied by secondary legislation following deregulation.
The Bill will give the renamed integrated transport authorities well-being powers, but those powers will still not allow them to do anything specifically prohibited under other legislation. The other disapplication of the appropriate legislation amounts to a prohibition on them leasing buses. Clause 61 will restore the power to do so, but only in specified circumstances consistent with their current statutory functions.
The amendments aim at a partial restoration of the power of PTEs to operate buses, which, as my hon. Friends said, was their primary function before the implementation of the 1985 Act. One problem with that suggestion is that I am not sure whether the Committee is aware of the commitment needed for a PTE to play the role of operator of last resort.
For such powers to be of any use, it would have to be possible for the PTE to exercise them at a moments notice. Otherwise, it might as well let an emergency contract, which it can do. The PTE would certainly need a public service vehicle operators licence, the necessary financial standing and a professionally competent transport manager available any time the emergency might arise. The requirements of the licensing system need to be satisfied at all times while the licence is in force, not just on the rare occasions when an emergency arises. The PTE would also need vehicles and drivers to operate the services. Arguably, those of the failed company would be available, but they would not necessarily fall into the PTEs lap.
Similar problems arise with the operator-of-last-resort powers in rail franchising legislation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley referred to. There are few undertakings qualified to step in and run a railway at short notice, so there is no alternative to those powers. The letting of emergency bus contracts, however, is quite a commonplace occurrence, particularly with school bus services, for example. That seldom causes serious problems.

John Leech: Does the Minister accept that without those powers local authorities could be held to ransom by operators over quality contracts?

Rosie Winterton: I will come to that. My point is that, taking the issue of quality contracts, local authorities already have powers to enter into emergency subsidy arrangements with an operator. We have a power in the Bill to disapply the usual tendering requirements in certain circumstances.

John Leech: In fairness, the Minister has just proved my pointit is all about subsidised services and operators making a fortune at the expense of the PTE.

Rosie Winterton: I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman has to balance what he is saying. A PTE could bring in a private operator under a contract to the local authority more quickly than an authority could get hold of enough drivers, vehicles and so on to operate a service of its own.
We understand that PTEs would be concerned about the consequences of a large operator suddenly pulling out or falling on hard times and being unable to carry out its contractual duties. It is also true that in those circumstance receivers or administrators would be called in to continue to run the companys affairs as best they could until a buyer was found. In particular, they would want to keep services going, as they would bring in revenue.
Maintaining contractual obligations would take precedence over discretionary activities, so services outside quality contracts schemesif we want to look again at the quality contracts systemcould be more at risk than those provided on a purely commercial basis. While I understand the point being made about being the operator of last resort, the problem for PTEs would be that requirements would have to be in place the whole time to fulfil that and we believe that the ability to allow emergency contracts, which we have powers to do, is available under existing legislation.

Clive Betts: May I put a possible scenario to my right hon. Friend? She is indicating that the clause gives new powers to PTEs to enable them to purchase vehicles that they can hire out to operators on a contractual basis, which may fit this particular requirement. Would it be possible for a local authority under its well-being powers to tender for such a contract?

Rosie Winterton: As I understand it, that was disapplied under the Transport Act 1968. If I mistaken in that, I will write to the Committee. In terms of emergency powers, we believe that it is possible for local authorities to have adequate facilities in place to ensure that if a contractor failed the local authority could put the contract out very quickly and the usual tendering process would not have to be undergone. For that reason, we do not believe that it would be reasonable to expect PTEs to have some of the large operators licences that could be possible for 200 or 300 vehicles and be able to fall back on trying to get them up and running with drivers and people running them. Frankly, it is more likely that that would be more effectively achieved by actually going through the emergency tendering process that we have in place. With that reassurance and clarification, I hope that my hon. Friends will withdraw their amendments.

Graham Stringer: I shall eventually withdraw the amendment, but in a way it will be in spite of my right hon. Friends arguments rather than because of them. There was one argument and one point that I do not think she dealt with, although she went through a number of scenarios. In a sense, I agree with her because, as both my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles and I have said, the provision would be used only in the most exceptional and potentially unforeseeable circumstances. The Minister has gone through all the alternativesyes, there will be alternativesbut she did not say why the emergency powers are held in London and not the rest of England.
My second point has run through a lot of our arguments. Let me say clearly that some very decent people own and run bus companies. There are good bus companies that run services with integrity and that are good for passengers, but there are also absolute rascals out there who will use anything they can to get one over on the public sector and get subsidy. They threaten and they push. We have mentioned Brian Souter and Stagecoach. During the so-called bus wars in Manchester, that company did not behave reasonably but said, We will close this city down. We will park buses on all the roads in the city centre if you dont do what we want. That part of the atmosphere in which towns such as Preston and cities such as Manchester have had to operate. To deny even relatively small powers such as the amendment proposes is to give the rascals a benefit. The powers will not do down or harm the decent bus companies.
I hear what my right hon. Friend says. All the other available powers might well be able to deal with an emergency, but they might not. I have been in a number of situations in local government where companies have gone bankrupt or other things have happened, and the lawyers have searched through the law books to see what they can do. In such situations, it is important to have as many powers and alternatives as possible to deal with something damaging to the communities we represent.
We may come back to the amendment. It is not the most important amendment moved, but the Governments case seems particularly weak.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 62 to 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66

Removal of certain disabilities and requirements for consent

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 266, in clause 66, page 56, line 19, leave out subsection (2).
Subsection (2) repeals the provisions set out in the Transport Act 1985, which state that when a local authority votes on matters relating to the activities of a transport company owned by the council, any councillors who are directors of that company are not allowed to vote without the Secretary of States permission. When I read the explanatory note saying that that obligation would be dispensed with, I was slightly at a loss. It seems a perfectly sensible and logical provision that preserves independence of decision making, so I am surprised that the Government want to delete it.

John Leech: Would that not be covered under the councillors code of conduct, which precludes councillors from voting on matters in which they have an interest?

Stephen Hammond: It may or it may notthe code of conduct certainly requires them to declare an interestbut saying so explicitly on the face of the Bill would add weight to what should happen. I see no reason why the Government should want to repeal that provision. I am sure that in a moment the Minister will use her extraordinary powers of persuasion to tell me why I am wrong, but she will have to go a long way in this case.

Rosie Winterton: If enacted, clause 66 will remove two forms of central Government control over bus companies that are owned wholly or partly by local authorities. If those companies include elected members on their boards, which I believe they all do, they must be unpaid, non-executive directors. Current legislation, which goes back to 1985, requires those elected members to obtain a dispensation from the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers before speaking or voting on matters affecting their company. That was intended to prevent possible conflicts of interest between their roles as councillors and as directors.
Of course that is still important, but local government has changed. Under more recent local government legislation, the conduct regime for councillors allows such dispensations to be granted by local standards committees. The role of the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers is no longer needed, and the clause will fulfil a long-standing commitment to remove it. That is fully supported by the Department for Communities and Local Government and by Welsh Ministers.
The amendment would retain the dispensation provisions in the 1985 Act, meaning that councillors would effectively need two sets of dispensation, one from their local standards committee and one from central Government. The Bill provides an opportunity to get rid of an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, and I am afraid that the amendment would deprive us of that opportunity. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Stephen Hammond: That may be what the Minister wants, but it is not what she has left us with. She says that it will be recognised that the standards bodies are the appropriate bodies to give dispensation, but that point needs to be in the Bill. I am not persuaded by what she says, so I shall press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68

The Public Transport Users Committee for England

John Leech: I beg to move amendment No. 232, in clause 68, page 57, line 22, leave out by sub-committees with members and insert
on a regional basis by persons.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 233, in clause 68, page 57, line 39, after policies, insert , including regional transport policies,.

John Leech: Amendment No. 232 would enable the functions of the new watchdog to be carried out on a regional basis. Although we would not favour the establishment of a large regional structure or a regional committee structure for the new watchdog, it should have a regional dimension.
Bus travel is local in character, and multiple operators are involved in its provision, including a host of very small local operators. It is far less easy for a single national organisation to have a good grasp of all the local variations than it is in the case of rail, where there are a limited number of players, and information on them and their performance is readily available and easily assimilated. In addition, key changes to services, for instance fares and frequencies, do not happen at the same time and with ample warning, as they do in rail. Again unlike rail, there is no guiding hand in Whitehall that influences the extent and quality of service provision, other than by indirect measures such as grant and subsidy regimes, vehicle regulations and so on.
Most of the key decision makers on the quality of service that bus passengers receive are regionally based, and thus the influence and credibility of a purely national watchdogespecially if it is London basedis arguable. Given that, there is a strong case for the bus watchdog to have a limited regional dimension, especially if it will eventually take on an appeals role for complaints, liaise effectively with the main actors on bus services in each region, and act as a credible voice for passengers in the deregulated regions, whenever major problems or issues arise.

Rosie Winterton: The amendments are directed at the powers included in the Bill to establish a Public Transport Users Committee for England. However, on 8 April, the Secretary of State announced that subject to further consultation on the details, it is proposed to confer additional functions on the Rail Passengers Council, Passenger Focus, to enable it to represent the interests of bus passengers. Amendments to the clause will not, therefore, have any immediate effect. I assure the hon. Gentleman that were we to set up a committee in that way, the powers in the Bill would be wide enough to enable a regional sub-committee network to be established if that was thought desirable. As I have indicated, those are matters for the future, and I hope that my reassurances will enable the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

John Leech: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 267, in clause 68, page 57, line 23, at end insert
(ea) about the making of an annual report on the discharge of functions and financial situation of the Committee to
(i) the Secretary of State,
(ii) all local transport authorities,
(iii) both Houses of Parliament, and
(iv) such other person, if any, as the Secretary of State may determine..
The Committee will not be surprised to learn that the amendment does not require much in the way of introduction. It continues the theme that I have followed throughout about consultation and accountability. The new bus passenger watchdog should make an annual report in which it describes its activities during the year and the state of its finances. We should state in the Bill exactly where that report should go. It should go to the Secretary of State and all local transport authorities and it should be available to both Houses of Parliament andin the usual exhaustive provision
such other person...as the Secretary of State may determine..
The amendment would effectively give the Secretary of State power to include a provision about such a report in the order that she makes, for the purpose of establishing the Public Transport Users Committee for England. It should not be controversial. If we are to create that body and put it on a statutory basis, we must ensure that it is accountable and does the job it was set up to do. All other organisations produce similar annual reports, which generally prove a relatively effective way of reviewing their work. I hope that the Minister will be persuaded to accept my entirely sensible amendment.

Rosie Winterton: The amendment would add to the list of provisions that could be covered in any order made by the Secretary of State to establish a public transport users committee. Again, as the Secretary of State announced on 8 April, it is now proposed to confer additional functions on the Rail Passengers Council, Passenger Focus, to represent the interests of passengers, so in a sense the amendment is not relevant to the body that we will establish. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we probably will require the new body to publish some kind of annual report, but we do not want to put that requirement in the Bill. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond: Obviously, I think that the requirement would benefit from being included in the Bill. None the less, I am persuaded by the Ministers reassurance that she will put it in guidance that the body must produce an annual report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Leech: I beg to move amendment No. 234, in clause 68, page 58, line 25, at end insert
(1A) The Committee may consider representations (including complaints) made by or on behalf of users of any public passenger transport services or facilities in England and, where it appears to the Committee to be desirable, make and publish recommendations or representations in respect of those services or facilities..
The amendment would create a complaints role for the passenger transport users committee. The consultation document did not envisage the watchdog having any complaints role; instead, it argued that operators should be the primary complaints bodies with the industry-funded bus appeals body taking on the appeals role. That contrasts with existing arrangements for rail passengers everywhere and for all transport users in London. For rail passengers, the system is that complaints are made first to operators and can then be appealed to the statutory watchdog, Passenger Focus. In London, the user of any transport mode complains first to Transport for London and can appeal to the statutory watchdog, London TravelWatch. We would like to see the same system for bus travel outside London.

Stephen Hammond: I support the amendment, which has a lot of merit. It concerns the functions of the new body. If that body is to be effective, it must have powers of representation and complaint. It is worth putting those things explicitly in the Bill.

Rosie Winterton: As I have said, instead of setting up a public transport users committee, we intend to confer additional functions on the Rail Passengers Council, Passenger Focus, so that it can represent bus passenger interests. The amendment applies to a public transport users committee and so would not have an immediate effect on what we are doing. If we set up a committee, the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to confer complaint and representation functions to it, should that be required.
In the meantime, I hope that it will reassure the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington to learn that we will be working with Passenger Focus over the coming months on future arrangements and on whether it should have a direct complaints-handling role. That work will feed into any secondary legislation, on which we shill consult before bringing it to the House for the affirmative resolution procedure. The point that he is making about Passenger Focus, which is where I assume he meant the amendment to be directed, will be taken into account in the consultation. I hope that reassures him and that he will withdraw the amendment.

John Leech: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 268, in clause 68, page 58, line 30, leave out paragraph (a).

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 269, in clause 68, page 58, line 33, leave out paragraph (d).
No. 272, in clause 68, page 59, line 13, leave out subsection (9).

Stephen Hammond: The amendments are designed to probe the powers and functions of the committee and the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to the committee. First, I am slightly confused by subsection (3)(a) to proposed new section 125B, which will be inserted in the Transport Act 1985. It states that the Secretary of State may
confer further functions on the Committee.
Given that the committee already has the power by virtue of the preceding subsection to consider and make recommendations on
any such matter if asked to do so by the Secretary of State,
I am left wondering what further functions the Secretary of State might want the committee to have. The Minster will need to clarify that for hon. Members. 
The same subsection states that the Secretary of State may
transfer any functions of the Committee to another person (including the Secretary of State).
I would be interested to know in exactly what circumstances the Minster thinks that that is likely to occur. I cannot think of any circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to transfer the functions of the committee to themselves and thereby act as the bus passenger champion. For instance, does the same provision exist when the committee acts as the rail passenger watchdog and, if so, has it ever been used?
Finally, I would like to probe subsection 9 of proposed new section 125B, which states:
The Committee may do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of its functions.
That seems like a wide remit, and I wonder what the committee might do in practice. There are well-stated powers, obligations and responsibilities, so what is the anything that the committee may do? We are obviously in favour of giving powers to Passenger Focus to become the bus passenger watchdog, but I am looking for reassurance that the body will have the appropriate powers.

Rosie Winterton: As I have said before, and as I think the hon. Gentleman understands, it has now been decided that Passenger Focus will be the new bus passenger champion, so we have no immediate plans to use the powers to establish a new Public Transport Users Committee for England. However, if we decided to use the provisions in the future, we would want the flexibility to confer additional functions on that body and perhaps transfer functions to another body.
I shall explain a little more about that. First, the Bill specifies only two functions for any future PTUCit is important to distinguish it from Passenger Focus, which we propose to establish as the bus passenger champion. The first function is to consider and make recommendations or representations to the Secretary of State about public transport services. The second function is to consider and make recommendations about matters that are referred to the committee by the Secretary of State. It is possible that the PTUC might usefully undertake other functions as well. It might want to make representations to someone other than the Secretary of State, such as bus operators, local authorities or traffic commissioners. If amendment No. 268 were accepted, it would not be possible to give the committee such functions.
Secondly, one might decide after a period of time that a function being carried out by the PTUC could usefully be performed in the future by someone else. Had the PTUC been given a remit to consider bus passengers complaints, for example, in the light of experience one might conclude that in the area of quality contracts schemes it would be better for the local authority to take on that remit. Again, if amendment No. 269 were accepted, there would be no power to transfer that function.
Thirdly, there are many actions that the PTUC might wish to take in order to carry out its functions, but it would not be sensible to list them on the face of the legislation. That is why we have included the catch-all power that commits the committee to undertake tasks that allow it to do its job of representing passengers. For example, the PTUC might be asked by the Secretary of State to consider and make recommendations about bus performance in a particular area. The committee might feel that without outside help it would not have the right expertise to do that. It might want to hire a team of people to carry out a survey of passengers or distribute questionnaires to households and then employ consultants to analyse them. Amendment No. 272 would prevent it from doing so.
As I have said, at present, we are looking to Passenger Focus to take on those powers, but if we wanted to establish a PTUC in the future, we would want to have the flexibility that the amendments would remove. I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond: I understand exactly what the Minister is saying, but she did not answer my question, certainly in respect of amendment No. 268. I understand about further functions, but she did not address my point. The future PTUC can
consider and make recommendations...about any such matter if asked to do so by the Secretary of State.
I cannot see the difference between any such matter and why it would need the further function. I remain somewhat surprised by that.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming

Stephen Hammond: I was saying that I am slightly perplexed by the Ministers arguments about further functions and the phrase any such matter, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 270, in clause 68, page 58, line 43, after body, insert
representative of the users of public transport.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 271, in clause 68, page 59, line 1, after body, insert
representative of the users of public transport.

Stephen Hammond: According to subsection (5) of proposed new section 125B of the Transport Act 1985, the committee will have the power to arrange for other bodies to discharge its functions on its behalf. Will the Minister explain exactly in what circumstances she would expect the committee to ask some other body or individual to discharge those functions? It is not absolutely clear why that would be necessary or to whom it would ask functions to be discharged. Will the Minister guide us through that matter?

Rosie Winterton: As I have explained, although there are powers in the Bill to set up the committee, the Government announced on 8 April that, in fact, we would use Passenger Focus as the bus passenger champion, so we do not have any immediate plans to use the powers, although we propose to retain them.
To answer the hon. Gentlemans question, when we consulted on the draft Bill last year, many people told us that passengers needed better representation nationally by a body with statutory powers, which is why we are introducing them. In crafting the powers, we recognise that future consultation will be necessary to ensure that we set up the type of body that meets the actual needs of passengers. At the same time, we want to ensure that we do not create duplication between different bodies. We wanted the maximum flexibility for the passenger transport users committee to take on functions that are currently carried out by another body, and vice versa.
It is likely that any such transfer of functions would be between bodies with an interest in consumer representation, but they might not be directly representative of public transport users. If the PTUC were established, we might want to transfer functions to it from the National Consumer Council or vice versa. That group represents consumers, including those of transport services, but it is not directly representative of public transport users.
The amendment would reduce the flexibility of the committee to take on, or to give to another body, functions that, with hindsight, might have been best carried out elsewhere. It is therefore contrary to the idea behind the clause, and I hope that what I have said gives the hon. Member for Wimbledon the clarification that he was looking for.

Stephen Hammond: Yet again, the Ministers powers of persuasion overwhelm me. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69

Power to confer non-rail functions on the Rail Passengers Council

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Rosie Winterton: There is just one small point that I would like to make about clause 69. Our consultation on strengthening the representation of bus passengers raised the issue of other public transport modes. A number of respondents to the consultation, including the Campaign for Better Transport, highlighted the importance of ensuring a statutory voice for light rail and tram passengers, as well as for bus users, and they suggested that any public transport watchdog should be able to look across modes of transport, so that passengers end-to-end journeys were looked at as a whole. We need to examine the issue a little further, but I should like to give the Committee notice that it is one that the Government may wish to return to on Report, specifically in relation to light rail and tram passengers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70

Power to require display of certain information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: I shall be very brief. The clause gives a very wide power. It uses the words
in such place or places and in such manner as may be prescribed.
Clearly, the clause gives power to determine both the method of publicity and what information is published, but just as importantly, the language that the information is published in. I am well aware and expect as a sop to the Welsh that, in Wales, we would need to have any leaflet or document published in English and Welsh. However, the one area that the present Prime Minister is right is in his campaign for Britishness and I hope that, in respect of any information published in England

Siân James: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Greg Knight: I suppose that I asked for this.

Siân James: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is worth noting that, despite the need to produce all material bilingually, we are still loyal citizens of the British isles. I feel that it would be very generous of Conservative Members to recognise the great gift that the Welsh language is to this nation and to Great Britain as a whole.

Greg Knight: I never doubted the hon. Ladys loyalty for one moment. If my remarks gave that impression, that was not intentional. However, the Prime Minister has made a good point about promoting Britishness, and I hope that this burdenit will be a burdenwill not be too onerous and that it will suffice in England for any document published to be published in English only.

Rosie Winterton: To clarify the situation, one of the issues that came up over and over again in consultation was that passengers felt that they did not know who they should complain to when a service was bad, and the idea behind the clause is to ensure consistency in the information that is available. With regard to the England versus Wales match, we are trying to ensure that passengers using services that cross between England and Wales have access to the correct information.
The power is worded such that operators would be required to display information relevant to passengers in whichever jurisdiction. So buses used on cross-border services would need to display information about the procedures in both England and Wales. I recognise that that might mean a little duplication for operators, but it will mean that passengers have access at all times to the information that they need. It would be for Welsh Ministers to make any regulations in Wales under clause 70.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses71 and 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.
Further consideration adjourned.[Mr. Watts.]

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eight oclock till Thursday 8 May at Nine oclock.